Accused and therefore in absence of the aforesaid company, the complaint could not be filed against the Managing Director of the Company. This view is supported by the judgments in C.H.Chishti versus State, N.N. Kakkar’s Case and Sureshchandra’s case, which are respectively reported in 1997 (2) EFR 210, 1997(2) Recent Criminal Cases, page 695 and in the unreported judgment from the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Cri.M.A.No.10011-M of 1997. In the case in hand also the facts clearly discloses that even if there is a violation of clause (7) of The Fertilizer (Control) Order, but it was the company who require to hold the license and not respondents. In the premise, in absence of Fertiland Industries is arrayed as an accused then there is substance in the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the respondents that in absence of the company arrayed as an accused, there shall not be any accusation against these respondents. Even though these respondents are discharged by the Revisional Court vide judgment and order in Criminal Revision Application No.225/2002, but considering this legal aspect, even though the order of discharge passed in the Criminal Revision Application by the learned Sessions Judge is not well founded, but for this ground, it is to be up-held. In the premise, in writ jurisdiction, the jurisdiction of this Court is not like the jurisdiction of the Appellate Court, but in the writ jurisdiction, this Court require to consider the legality of the order in view of the legal provisions under the relevant law. This Court do not feel it necessary to interfere in the impugned order.
